Page 2280 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 1 November 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
than Mr Kaine, perhaps a more confident view, that this parliament is the supreme legislative body in this Territory on Territory matters and has the right to consider such matters. There was unquestionably no sub judice consideration involved, and it is no offence to the court to consider, to report and to act on this question. I am sure the court would agree with that. Having decided that we should consider the matter, what did we then decide? Well, you have the report. You have heard the chairman's overall view of it. The remarks he has made are quite correct, of course. Basically the committee has decided that the building should go ahead and that it should be done by means of a surrender of the existing lease and the regrant of another lease. That is the way to do it. Certain conditions were attached; namely, to accommodate a variety of views expressed in the community which were quite legitimate and ought to be considered.
The proposal also accommodates a rather confused planning arrangement. There are a number of plans and there is some doubt as to which plan or which part of which plan has precedence over another. There are overlapping provisions. There are different relationships between plans. In that confused circumstance, the committee, I think, has trodden an effective path through it all to come up with these recommendations. It is also, I believe, the view of the committee - though these words have not been specifically used - that this ought to proceed with rapidity. There has been enough delay on this matter and it ought to go ahead without any further delay. The final point I wish to make on that matter is that this case should not be seen as setting any precedent. There are unique circumstances around it and it is not to be taken as opening up the gate for any other similar approach from other sources.
Having said that, I am not going to talk particularly about the report, but I will make a fairly general comment about planning in Civic. For a long time it has been agreed that Civic is not much of a commercial, entertainment and cultural centre for Canberra. I have the view that taking all public servants out of their Civic offices and putting non-public sector people in would not change that one bit. It will still be the same place. I think the planners have given us a place that is nowhere near as lively as it ought to be, and that is primarily because of the range of activities that are presently allowed to occur in Civic. We could go on as we are, removing public servants out of the place, and we would still have basically not much more than limited retail, food and entertainment provisions in the Civic area. The range of commercial activity that goes on is far too limited. It is simply not broad or interesting enough. I have views, which I will express in later debates, on the way that we can diversify what happens in Civic. Only then will it be a more interesting place to be in.
We could take the public servants out of the ground floor of all these buildings, but we do not make it any more
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .